Case law

Foremost-Mckesson, Inc. v. Foremost Sales Promotions, Inc.

443 F.2d 1191 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 24, 1971

What we said in Witco Chemical Co. v. … The decisions of the board in the opposition and the cancellation are affirmed. Affirmed.

United States v. Wells, Fargo & Co.

1 Ct. Cust. 158 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 11, 1911

The board, however, concluded that by reason of the principles laid down in United States v. Roessler & Hasslacher Chemical Co. (137 Fed. … . *162 See also Maddock v. Magone ( 152 U. S., 368 ); United States v. Buffalo Natural Gas & Fuel Co. ( 172 U. S., 339 ).

Food Specialty Co., Inc. v. Standard Products Company, Inc.

406 F.2d 1397 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 13, 1969

We think it sufficient merely to point out that the validity of the registration of a mark may be tested only by a cancellation proceeding. 2 Contour Chair-Lounge Co. v. … See: The Murray Corporation of America v. Red Spot Paint and Varnish Co., Inc., * * * and The Fleetwood Company v. Mende * * *. 3 [Emphasis added.]

James Burrough Ltd. v. LaJoie

462 F.2d 570 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jul 13, 1972

Opinion We have no difficulty concluding that the board erred in sustaining the applicants’ equitable defense in this case. In Salem Commodities, Inc. v. … We therefore do not have the benefit of its views in this regard, and we remand to allow the board to make a fully focused inquiry into this question. Myers v.

United States Treasury v. Synthetic Plastics Co.

341 F.2d 157 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 11, 1965

the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. … See Seamless Rubber Co. v. Ethicon, Inc., 268 F.2d 231 , 46 CCPA 950. The refusal of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board to strike the paragraphs referred to in appellant’s motion to strike is not such a “decision.”

In re Gruschwitz

320 F.2d 401 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jul 26, 1963

F 15842 V/37d, and the invention has since become patented in Germany on the basis of that application. … They contain no specification as to what error the board committed. If, in fact, the board did commit error it has not been pointed out.

Universal Overall Company v. Stonecutter Mills Corporation

379 F.2d 983 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 22, 1967

That application is involved in Opposition No. 40,441, in which *984 cross appeals from the decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board are decided concurrently herewith, Stonecutter Mills Corp. v. … The same parties and the same opposition proceeding are involved here as in Universal Overall Company v.

Application of Williams

188 F.2d 509 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 10, 1951

Harder v. Hayward, 150 F.2d 256 , 32 C.C.P.A., Patents, 1051. 2 . Citing: Hoover Co. v. … Ooms, 81 U.S.App.D.C. 215 , 157 F.2d 73 ; Philadelphia Storage Battery Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 7 Cir., 117 F.2d 642 ; Moore v. United States ex rel. Chott, 40 App.D.C. 591 . 3 . Citing: Cochrane v.

In re Davis

123 F.2d 651 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 1, 1941

The leading case upon this subject is that of Miller v. Eagle Manufacturing Company, 151 U. … novelty of the claim before us resides in the order of mixing the ingredients. ' There can be no doubt that the claims of the patent and the claim before us are for separate inventions; but under the rule laid down in Miller v.

In re Hornsey

48 F.2d 911 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 22, 1931

The board sustained the examiner in holding that “ there is no invention in substituting the reduction step of Stansfield in the process of Rendall,” and the board states further that:. … (Patents) 568, 34 F. (2d) 1012; and Line Material Co. v. Brady Elec. & Mfg. Co., 299 Fed. 824 .

Maine Central Railroad v. United States

14 Ct. Cust. 411 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 9, 1927

On the question of commercial designation, the board found as follows: That lambs are generally bought and sold as such. … Central Commercial Co. et al. v. United States, 11 Ct. Cust. Appls. 131 ; United States v. Beadenkopf Co. et al., 8 Ct. Cust. Appls. 283 .

United States v. Bradshaw & Co.

5 Ct. Cust. 121 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 29, 1914

United States v. Bauer ( 3 Ct. Cust. Appls., 343 ; T. D. 22627). … Inasmuch, however, as the appeal fails, the decision of the board is affirmed. United States v. Eytinge & Co. ( 4 Ct. Cust. Appls., 266 ; T. D. 33486).

United States v. Glendinning, McLeish & Co.

12 Ct. Cust. 222 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 19, 1924

The importer filed petitions for review to a board of three general appraisers, pursuant to which the cases were argued before Board 1, which board, in accordance with its opinion, dated May 22, 1923, in each of the invoices … —United States v. Rappolt & Co. ( 9 Ct. Cust. Appls. 21 ; T. D. 37846).

United States v. Walter

4 Ct. Cust. 95 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 22, 1913

The board sustained the protest. … United States v. Kwong Yuen Shing ( 1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 14 ; T. D. 30773); Acker v. United States ( 1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 328 ; T. D. 31431).

In re Sarkar

588 F.2d 1330 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 7, 1978

Applying the guidance of Benson, supra, and Parker v. … At oral argument the solicitor did not disavow the views of the examiner and the board, but said it makes little if any difference, citing Parker v. Flook, supra note 9 .

Stone & Downer Co. v. United States

13 Ct. Cust. 649 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 27, 1926

the board appellant appealed to this court. … D. 41250, in the following language: It is urged by counsel for the importers that the board’s decision rests upon carelessness, and that the case of Fish v.

In re Yardley

493 F.2d 1389 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 28, 1974

The board affirmed this rejection. In support of the affirmance, the board’s opinion cites and discusses the following twelve cases: 1. Louis De Jonge & Co. v. Breuker & Kessler Co., 182 F. 150 (C.C.S. … In Mazer v.

Colgate-Palmolive Company v. Carter-Wallace, Inc., by Change of Name From Carter Products Inc.

432 F.2d 1400 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 12, 1970

The board’s response to this contention was that such inclusiveness did not ipso facto warrant a holding that the marks are confusingly similar, citing Murray Corporation of America v. … We think, however, the language employed by this court in Denney v. Elizabeth Arden Sales Corp., 263 F.2d 347 , 46 CCPA 790 (1959), bears relevance to the instant appeal.

Francis S. Kilmer MacMillan v. Robert B. Moffett

432 F.2d 1237 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 12, 1970

It is MacMillan’s position that this court, in Smith v. Bousquet, 111 F.2d 157 , 27 CCPA 1136 (1940), applied such a doctrine of simultaneous conception and reduction to practice. Whether or not the holding in Smith v. … Bousquet was based on such a doctrine, this court’s decision in Applegate v.

Stern v. United States

3 Ct. Cust. 124 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 1, 1912

Limitations of this kind were defined by this court in the recent case of Lazarus, Rosenfeld & Lehmann v. United States ( 2 Ct. Cust. Appls., 508 ; T. D. 32247). … The decision of the Board of General Appraisers is accordingly modified.